Tag Archives: greenpeace

12 of the Biggest Threats Facing Our Oceans

As we spend our summer days enjoying beach days and fresh seafood, please considerthe biggest threats facing the health and future of this most important of ecosystems.

1. Ignorance

We know less about the oceans than we do about the moon. And yet, the oceans are far more essential to our survival.Less than 0.05 percent of the ocean floor has been mapped to a level of detail useful for detecting items such as airplane wreckage or the spires of undersea volcanic vents, reports Scientific American.

2. Indifference

Maybe it’s because they’re so big. Maybe it’s because they’re so deep. Or maybe it’s because things sink out of sight. Whatever the reason, people generally seem to worry less about the health of the oceans than almost any other ecosystem on Earth. Here are six reasons why you should be more concerned about ocean conservation.

3. Climate Change

The oceans are vast heat sinks that, despite their size, are highly susceptible to climate change. A “mere” 1 degree Celsius increase in ocean temperatures hascaused marine life to die, set off superstorms and hurricanes, and changed weather patterns around the globe. Climate change is among the most serious threats the ocean faces because it will take so long to reverse the impact it is having on the oceans. Even if today we stopped emitting the carbon dioxide, methane and other “greenhouse gases” that cause climate change, it would be decades before the ocean would benefit, because they are so large and in constant flux.

4. Trash and Toxic Runoff

Untreated sewage, garbage, fertilizers, pesticides and industrial chemicals are common on land, and sadly, they eventually find their way into the ocean, as well. Sometimes they’re deliberately dumped. Sometimes, they “run off” because they’re not contained properly when they’re disposed. TheGulf of Mexico suffers daily from the chemicals routinely carried into it by the Mississippi, says Ocean.org, especially the nitrogen and phosphorous doused on agricultural operations. Rivers carry these chemicals steadily to the oceans, creating “dead zones” in many gulfs, bays and estuaries all over the world.

5. Oil and Gas Development

Speaking of dead zones, when an oil spill happens, thousands of square miles of undersea life can be affected for decades.When the Deepwater Horizon oil rig blew up, it was called the”worst environmental disaster the U.S. has faced,” by White House energy adviser Carol Browner.The spill was by far the largest in U.S. history, almost 20 times greater than the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Though disasters of that magnitude don’t occur regularly, smaller oil spills plus the oil that finds its way to the sea from improper disposal on land, still take a serious toll killing marine animals, polluting waters and reducing the productivity of fisheries.

7. Air Pollution

Just as air pollution causes smog in our cities and sends acid rain falling on our forests, it threatens the oceans, too.Ateam of climate scientists and coral ecologists from the United Kingdom, Australia and Panama discovered that pollution from fine particles in the air, like those emitted by coal-burning power plants as well as volcanoes, can shade corals from sunlight, which is needed for the coral to grow. Acid rain falling on coastal areas makes them more acidic, threatening the ability ofsea urchins, corals and certain types of planktons to create the hard outer exoskeletons they need to survive. And if these animals don’t survive, the entire oceanic food chain could be affected.

8. Plastic

From plastic microbeads to plastic bags, the amount of plastic filling up the oceans has reached epidemic proportions. Each year, 8 million tons of plastic are added to our seas,equivalent to one municipal garbage truck pulling up to the beach and dumping its contents every minute, reports Fortune magazine. Areport by the Ocean Conservancy, in partnership with the McKinsey Center for Business and Environment, warns that by 2025, the ocean could contain one ton of plastic for every three tons of finfish.

9. Unsustainable Fishing

Ninety percent of the world’s fisheries are already fully exploited or overfished, while billions of unwanted fish and other animals die needlessly each year when they are trapped as the “by catch” of other fishing operations.

“Unsustainable fishing is the largest threat to ocean life and habitats … not to mention the livelihoods and food security of over a billion people,” says World Wildlife Fund. Greenpeace concurs. “Weve already removed at least two-thirds of the large fish in the ocean, and one in three fish populations have collapsed since 1950. Put simply, there are too many boats chasing too few fish.”

10. Lack of Protection

Though they cover over 70 percent of our planets surface, only a tiny fraction of the oceans has been protected: just 3.4 percent, reports Oceana. Even worse, “the vast majority of the worlds few marine parks and reserves are protected in name only. Without more and better managed Marine Protected Areas, the future of the oceans rich biodiversityand the local economies it supportsremains uncertain.”

11. Tourism and Development, Leading to Habitat Destruction

All over the world, our coastlines have become burgeoning sites for housing, vacationing communities, commercial development, and factories and refineries. Coastal wetlands are filled in, waste gets dumped into the seas, and habitat for fish, birds and other marine life gets destroyed.

12. Shipping

More freight is moved via ocean cargo vessels than any other method; more oil is carried on tankers than through pipelines. Unsurprisingly,oil spills, ship groundings, anchor damage and the dumping of trash, ballast water and oily waste are threateningmarine habitats around the world.

What Can You Do? Startwith these helpful articles from Care2.

5 Human Habits Harmful to Ocean Health
There’s a Better Way to Protect Our Ocean Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Continued here: 

12 of the Biggest Threats Facing Our Oceans

Posted in alo, Anchor, Anker, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 12 of the Biggest Threats Facing Our Oceans

Now there’s one less way for Big Coal to screw over Americans

The spurn of the screw

Now there’s one less way for Big Coal to screw over Americans

By on Jul 1, 2016Share

The Obama administration took a small step on Thursday to prevent coal companies from fleecing taxpayers.

Until now, the biggest coal conglomerates were getting away with scamming the government by selling coal mined on federal land to their own subsidiaries for a discounted, below-market price. Since the government’s royalties from that coal are a percentage of the sale price, that meant the companies were paying lower royalties than they should have been. Forty-two percent of the coal produced in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin — the biggest coal-producing area in the U.S. right now — was being sold through these “captive transactions,” according to Public Citizen, a good government advocacy group.

On Thursday, the Interior Department issued a new rule that puts a stop to that practice.

“One of the things Cloud Peak [Energy] and other coal companies were doing is selling to an affiliate at the mine mouth and then selling it in the export market at a significantly higher price,” says Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen’s energy program. This new rule will allow the department to more accurately calculate the “market value” of coal, oil, and gas extracted on public land and make sure it’s getting paid fair royalties. Slocum estimates that this could bring in an additional $300 million per year in royalties.

This is important for two reasons: Corporations should not be stealing from the public, and every penny we undercharge fossil-fuel companies is an implicit subsidy for the dirty fuels that cause climate change. Coal companies are struggling, and instead of throwing them a lifeline that will help them stay in the business of worsening global warming, we should be letting them sink.

Crucially, unlike many other rules issued by federal agencies, this new rule will apply not just to future leases but also to ones that already exist. So even under a coal lease bought five years ago, a company will now have to pay fairer royalty rates going forward.

This is just the beginning of reforms needed to the federal fossil-fuel leasing system. A bigger issue is that coal, oil, and gas lease rates have failed to keep pace with the market, and on top of that they do not factor in the social costs of pollution and climate change. If they did those two things, the cost of fossil-fuel leases would be prohibitive. As it is, the leasing program is a big money-loser for the federal government. Greenpeace estimates that coal leasing alone costs taxpayers some $50 billion per year.

Ultimately, of course, we should be keeping fossil fuels in the ground — especially on land owned by the public. Hillary Clinton has pledged to move toward that goal, but she hasn’t specified a timeline. President Obama and Interior Secretary Sally Jewell have only promised to ensure that the public gets a fair price for fossil fuels extracted from public land, and to align the leasing programs with the administration’s goal of combatting climate change. It’s not clear what exactly either of those things mean. But in January, the Interior Department put a moratorium on new coal leases pending the results of a multi-year environmental review of the leasing program.

Climate activists have made fixing the broken fossil-fuel leasing system their top priority, and clearly more changes will occur, but no one knows how far they will go.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Read original article:  

Now there’s one less way for Big Coal to screw over Americans

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, PUR, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Now there’s one less way for Big Coal to screw over Americans

Does Exxon Have a Constitutional Right to Deny Climate Change?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Does Exxon Mobil have a constitutional right to sow doubt about climate science? That’s the subject of a high-stakes legal battle playing out between dozens of state attorneys general, members of Congress, corporate executives, and activists.

Last fall, investigations by Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times revealed that the oil giant has decades of internal documents showing that its own scientists and executives knew fossil fuels contributed to climate change. Publicly, the company argued that the threats posed by global warming were far from certain, presumably as part of an effort to fight off regulations.

A March 2000 Exxon Mobil ad about climate science. (Click here for a larger image.) Greenpeace

The revelations have sparked a barrage of legal actions. The attorney generals of Massachusetts, California, and New York launched investigations of Exxon, while Democratic AGs from other states have expressed their support. Some have drawn parallels to the tobacco industry’s deception on the dangers of smoking. Exxon has countered that the investigations are unconstitutional and has filed motions asking courts to block the subpoenas. “This…is about freedom of political speech,” the company recently argued in the Massachusetts case.

In March, US Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker served the company with a subpoena seeking records that he claimed might prove that Exxon had defrauded consumers and the government by “misrepresenting its knowledge” that its fossil fuels contribute to climate change. Walker specifically pointed to a state racketeering statute that prohibits obtaining money by false pretenses. He demanded any documents detailing Exxon’s knowledge of climate change and its strategies to address it, including research studies, publications, statements, and communications with outside groups. Exxon responded by filing a lawsuit against Walker to block the subpoena. Exxon prevailed on Wednesday, when Walker agreed to withdraw the subpoena.

Exxon received some unusual assistance in its victory in the Virgin Islands case. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a tea-party-aligned Republican, went so far as to formally intervene—that is, he asked the court to allow the state of Texas to become a party to the case. Exxon, he wrote, had a First Amendment right to withhold the documents Walker was seeking. The brief was also signed by Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange (R). (Paxton and Strange also objected to Walker’s use of a private law firm to help conduct the investigation.)

In a press conference in May, Paxton had called Walker’s investigation “a fishing expedition of the worst kind” and said it represented “an effort to punish Exxon for daring to hold opinions on climate change that differ from theirs.”

“This is about the criminalization of speech and the criminalization of thought,” he said.

Two days later, Republican members of the House Science Committee sent letters to Walker and 16 Democratic attorneys general requesting documents related to the various Exxon investigations. They followed up with additional letters in June.

On June 15, Paxton and 12 other GOP attorneys general signed a letter criticizing the Exxon investigations. The letter laid out a free-speech argument in stark terms, saying, “Actions indicating that one side of the climate change debate should fear prosecution chills speech in violation of a formerly bi-partisan First Amendment consensus.”

Exxon, which is headquartered in Texas and is a major employer in the state, did not respond to a request for comment. The company’s former vice president of public and government affairs, Kenneth P. Cohen, previously told the New York Times, “We unequivocally reject the allegations that Exxon Mobil has suppressed climate change research.”

Paxton’s involvement in the case alarmed some environmentalists, who note that attorneys general are charged with enforcing state laws and regulations. It’s unusual for a state to intervene in support of a company that is under investigation, said Stacey Geis, managing attorney at Earthjustice, an environmental law organization.

It’s as if Paxton were trying to act as Exxon’s lawyer, she said.

Paxton’s deputy Brantley Starr disputed that allegation.

“If we were intervening on behalf of someone, it would be the Constitution,” he said in a phone interview.

Michael McConnell, a Stanford law professor and senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution, agreed that Paxton’s intervention was “highly unusual.” Nevertheless, he added in an email that Walker’s subpoena was “quite possibly unconstitutional.” Exxon, he said, has “a right to have a position on global warming.”

Other scholars and activists reject that argument. Naomi Ages, a project leader at environmental advocacy group Greenpeace, called the Virgin Islands investigation “legitimate” and said Paxton’s intervention was “unprecedented” and based on “pretty specious legal grounds.”

Robert Post, the dean of Yale Law School, argues that it is “irresponsible to invoke the First Amendment” to defend Exxon. “There are circumstances when scientific theories must remain open and subject to challenge, and there are circumstances when the government must act to protect the integrity of the market, even if it requires determining the truth or falsity of those theories,” wrote Post in a Washington Post op-ed last week. “Public debate must be protected, but fraud must also be suppressed.”

Starr counters that the Texas AG’s office was not claiming corporations can never be investigated for fraud, but rather that an investigation cannot be based on a public policy debate. “What we shouldn’t do is investigate public debate and say that there’s only one side of the public debate that we’re investigating,” he said.

Paxton has received nearly $1 million dollars in contributions from the oil and gas industry during his seven runs for public office, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics. During a recent event at the conservative Heritage Foundation, he warned that the investigation of Exxon could have resulted in job losses in his state, though he declined to provide a specific estimate of how many jobs were in jeopardy.

Meanwhile, Paxton is facing legal challenges of his own. The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint against him in April, alleging that he had recruited investors for a company without disclosing that he was receiving compensation in the form of stock in the company. This complaint followed three state criminal indictments on charges of securities fraud and failing to register as an investment adviser.

In a video released by his campaign in May, Paxton called the charges “false” and “politically motivated.”

When asked for comment on the SEC investigation at the Heritage Foundation event, Paxton declined to answer.

On Thursday, Paxton released a statement hailing the withdrawal of Walker’s Exxon subpoena as a triumph for free speech.

“The so-called ‘investigation’ by Walker was a constitutionally improper attempt to suppress the freedom of speech based only on the content being communicated. In America, we have the freedom to disagree, and we do not legally prosecute people just because their opinion is different from ours.”

This article has been updated.

View article – 

Does Exxon Have a Constitutional Right to Deny Climate Change?

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Does Exxon Have a Constitutional Right to Deny Climate Change?

House Science Republicans find a way to hit rock bottom

House Science Republicans find a way to hit rock bottom

By on May 20, 2016Share

In March, a coalition of 17 state attorneys general announced they would begin an investigation aimed at corporate forces like ExxonMobil that have — over a period of decades — obstructed efforts to combat climate change. Now, corporations and their allies in Congress are striking back.

Thirteen Republicans on the U.S. House Science, Space, and Technology Committee circulated letters on Wednesday to the attorneys general and several environmental organizations. They claim the proceedings amount to a violation of free speech, and so they’re requesting documents related to the legal efforts against Exxon and industry-funded nonprofits.

The letters read, in part:

The Committee is concerned that these efforts to silence speech are based on political theater rather than legal or scientific arguments, and that they run counter to an attorney general’s duty to serve ‘as the guardian of the legal rights of the citizens’ and to ‘assert, protect, and defend the rights of the people.’ These legal actions may even amount to an abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

You read that right: The House Science Committee — the committee that’s headed by noted climate change denier Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and has jurisdiction over federal scientific research — wants everyone to stop picking on poor little Exxon and the most profitable industry in human history. As Greenpeace executive director Annie Leonard said, “America’s least-respected politicians have now courageously stepped up to defend one of America’s most-hated corporations from scrutiny.”

Exxon, proving itself perfectly capable of fighting its own battles, has more payback in the works: It filed court papers last month to challenge one attorney general’s investigation.

Get Grist in your inbox

Continued:

House Science Republicans find a way to hit rock bottom

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on House Science Republicans find a way to hit rock bottom

Watch Emma Thompson take on fracking … with cake

Watch Emma Thompson take on fracking … with cake

By on Apr 28, 2016Share

In the first and only episode of The Frack-free Bake Off, actress Emma Thompson and her sister Sophie turned baking into a new form of environmental activism.

They filmed The Great British Bake Off parody on land leased for drilling activity in Lancashire, England, where activists were banned after a 2014 protest. Thomspon, a longtime Grist crush, held the event in collaboration with Greenpeace to bring attention to the British government’s inconsistent commitment to the climate (“Lancashire voted for its favorite cake. But the government won’t let them have the final vote on fracking”).

In the process of whipping up confectionery feats — scrumptious renewable-energy-themed cakes — the sisters’ operation was sprayed with manure by a retaliatory local farmer.

So whose cake won: Emma’s wind-power cake or Sophie’s solar? Watch the video above to find out — and remember that in the game of fracking, really, none of us win.

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Source:

Watch Emma Thompson take on fracking … with cake

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Watch Emma Thompson take on fracking … with cake

In Wisconsin, Bernie Sanders Turns up the Heat on Hillary Clinton

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Sen. Bernie Sanders didn’t mince too many words during a campaign stop in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, on Friday afternoon. Midway through his typical stump speech railing against the millionaires and billionaires, he broke off to explicitly contrast himself with Hillary Clinton for her history of taking money from fossil fuel interests and giving highly paid speeches to financial firms, among other topics.

“As many of you may know, Secretary Clinton has given speeches on Wall Street for $225,000 per speech,” Sanders said to boos from his crowd. “You know what I think? If you’re going to give a speech for $225,000, it must be a really fantastic speech, don’t you think? Why else would you get $225,000? It must be written in Shakespearean prose. It must be a speech that solves most, if not all, the problems facing humanity.” Clearly pleased with his quips, Sanders then called for Clinton to share the speech transcripts with the rest of the world.

Sanders ticked off a number of other points of disagreement, lingering after the punchiest statements to allow his supporters time to boo his opponent. Sanders faulted Clinton for associating with a super-PAC, and supporting trade deals that he said harmed Wisconsin manufacturing. He said she couldn’t be trusted on foreign policy, since “she voted for the war in Iraq, the worst foreign policy blunder in the modern history of America.” Nor could she be trusted on the environment. “Secretary Clinton and I disagree on the issue of fracking. It may not seem like a sexy issue, but it is an enormously important issue,” Sanders said, pointing to her record pushing shale gas extraction abroad when she led the State Department.

But his most pointed criticism came when Sanders discussed the hubbub over fossil fuel donations that has enveloped the campaign over the past day. At a campaign event in New York on Thursday, a Greenpeace activist asked Clinton if she’d reject donations from those industries in light of her stance on climate change. “I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me. I’m sick of it,” Clinton responded, visibly angry as she jabbed her finger at the activist and argued that garnering support from individuals who work for fossil fuel companies isn’t the same as being supported by gas and oil companies.

Sanders was having none of that Friday. “Secretary Clinton, you owe our campaign an apology: We were telling the truth,” Sanders sternly said. He pointed to research from Greenpeace that highlights $4.5 million in donations to Clinton’s campaign from people tied to the fossil fuel industry. The figure lumps together contributions to Clinton’s campaign from employees of such companies (some of whom have also donated to Sanders) and donations from lobbyists working for the industry, along with money from individuals tied to fossil fuels that has gone to her super-PAC, Priorities USA. The Clinton campaign has pointed out that, as is legally required, it is not coordinating with the super-PAC, though Clinton and her staff have recruited donors for the organization.

Original link: 

In Wisconsin, Bernie Sanders Turns up the Heat on Hillary Clinton

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on In Wisconsin, Bernie Sanders Turns up the Heat on Hillary Clinton

Obama’s offshore drilling plan mostly a win for environmentalists, with a caveat

Obama’s offshore drilling plan mostly a win for environmentalists, with a caveat

By on 15 Mar 2016commentsShare

President Obama has shown little interest in gambling his environmental legacy in his final year of office. Rather than slow down after the Paris climate change conference in December, he has pushed forward on policies climate activists say are necessary to keep fossil fuels in the ground — first, his administration announced a moratorium on new coal leases, and now, it has taken the Atlantic Coast off the table for drillers.

The administration released a new version of its five-year plan for offshore drilling on Tuesday, and the most significant change is its reversal on its plan from a year ago to open the mid-Atlantic to offshore development. The Arctic, meanwhile, is still open for business: The new proposal solicits comments on whether to drop Arctic leases entirely or whether to limit them in some areas. But it also still has an option that includes leases in the Chuckhi Sea, Beaufort Sea, and Cook Inlet — much criticized by environmentalists who say a spill anywhere in the Arctic will have devastating effects for the rest of the region. The Gulf will be open for 10 leases.

The Interior Department’s plan for offshore drilling essentially sets the course for oil and gas development long after Obama leaves office. Technically it covers a period from 2017 to 2022, but oil and gas exploration offshore can take years to get off the ground, even decades before paying off the cost. Any delay is promising: While presidential candidates could promise to reverse course, in practice, they are unlikely to do so, explained Natural Resources Defense Council’s Beyond Oil Director Franz Matzner. “This administration sets the five-year plan for the next administration,” Matzner said in an email. “The next administration could, in theory, try to undo that, but we have not seen that precedent in the past. Far and away the most secure route for the Obama administration would be to permanently withdraw the Arctic and Atlantic from all future leasing, using his executive authority under [the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act].”

Advertisement – Article continues below

If the proposed version is finalized after the 90 days of public comment, it will be a significant achievement for environmentalists and local communities that organized against offshore drilling. With one caveat, of course: the Arctic.

“They won’t get it right every time, but it gives us a new hook to hold them and the next president to account,” 350.org spokesperson Jamie Henn said in an email. “The new test of climate leadership is if you’re keeping fossil fuels in the ground.”

“Less than a week after committing to protect the Arctic with Prime Minister Trudeau, President Obama has left the door open for Shell and the rest of the oil industry to drill in the region,” Greenpeace USA Executive Director Annie Leonard said in an email. “This decision doesn’t balance conservation and energy — it fuels climate chaos. President Obama must place the whole Arctic off limits. This program isn’t yet final, the president must use the time he has to take all new offshore drilling out of circulation.”

The Interior didn’t highlight climate change as part of its calculus on Tuesday, only citing “significant potential conflicts with other ocean uses such as the Department of Defense and commercial interests; current market dynamics; limited infrastructure; and opposition from many coastal communities.” But there was intense pressure from cities and businesses that rely on $4 billion in tourism and fishing on the coasts to remove the Atlantic from the plan. In recent weeks, both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have highlighted their opposition against drilling off the East Coast and the Arctic.

This is the second time the administration has tried to open the East Coast for drilling, only to reverse course. Just before the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster by BP, the administration proposed auctioning up to 104 million acres of the mid- and south-Atlantic and 10 leases in the Arctic. Then last January, Interior again put the Atlantic on the table, which set off protests from environmental groups and local businesses and residents.

The oil and gas industry, which eyed the Atlantic for its 3.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 31.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, will be furious. But public opinion on oil drilling is more complicated than political divides. Public support for offshore drilling plummets when there are spills, as it did after the BP disaster in 2010, but tends to rise again with passing time.

In his final year of office, Obama faces limits in what more he can do for the environment and climate. He’s already pushed his executive power on climate change more than any other president; the offshore drilling plan is one of the few opportunities he has left. Protecting the coasts by limiting oil and gas development offshore would be a fitting ending for a president who once called the BP spill the “worst environmental disaster America has ever faced.”

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Climate on the Mind

A Grist Special Series

Get Grist in your inbox

See the original post – 

Obama’s offshore drilling plan mostly a win for environmentalists, with a caveat

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, Radius, The Atlantic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama’s offshore drilling plan mostly a win for environmentalists, with a caveat

Giant Trawlers Are Gobbling Up Fish in Critical Marine Ecosystem

Industrial fishing operations are scouring the waters of the Barents Sea around Norway,threatening more than 200 fish species and potentially endangeringmillions of seabirds, seals, whales, sharks, and walruses.

Using satellite data and field work, researchers for Greenpeace spent three years documenting the devastating impact industrialtrawlers have hadon whatmany scientists call the “Arctic Galapagos.” In their report, “This Far, No Further,” Greenpeace concludes that”the largely unexplored and vulnerable northern part of the Barents Sea ecosystem is at the mercy of destructive fishing practices, due to the current lack of action to protect it by the Norwegian government or the fishing and processing companies.”

The report specifically implicates companies like Birdseye, Findus and Iglo, which are buying millions of pounds of cod fish caught by the destructive trawlers, as well as haddock, northern prawns and halibut. Greenpeace wants food companies, restaurants and retailers to refuse to traffic in fish caught in the Barents Sea. They are also calling for the Norwegian government to create an off-limits zone in the region.

There are several reasons why industrial trawling is such a big problem. First, itis simply “one of the most destructive methods of fishing,” says marine conservation biologist Calum Roberts, a professor at the University of York, England. “Over the last 200 years, it has converted once rich and complex seabed habitats to endless expanses of shifting sands and mud.”

The trawlers are “weighted with heavy metal rollers; they smash and crush everything in their path.” They can destroy deep-water coral reefs and kelp forests that provide food and breeding grounds for all manner of oceanic wildlife.

The sheer volume of fish that trawlers can catch is also extraordinary. Overfishing has already caused fisheries in other parts of the world to collapse, to the point where some scientists believe we could not just overfish but outfish the oceans by 2050. The increasing number of trawlers, fish processors, exporters and distributors that are now operating in the Barents Sea are putting the entire ecosystem there at risk, as well.

Plus, trawlers catch millions of other animals besides fish. “According to some estimates,as much as 40 percentof fish caught around the globe is discarded at sea, dead or dying,”reports Lee Crockett, Director of U.S. Oceans at the Pew Charitable Trusts. That means millions of whales, turtles, seals, seabirds and other marine life are indiscriminately being caught, killed and thrown back into the sea.

Greenpeace and other conservationists are advocating establishment of a marine reserve to put the most sensitive areas of the Barents Sea completely off-limits to all extractive uses. The organization is also urging fish processors to stop doing business with suppliers that are fishing the northern Barents Sea waters.

Consumers, meanwhile, can put pressure on retailers not to buy fish from producers that can’t document that their fish did not come from the Barents Sea.

Consumers can alsoalso consult the recommendations made at SeafoodWatch.org, a resource created by the Monterey Bay Aquarium in California to help people choose seafood that’s been farmed or fished in ways that minimize their environmental impact.

Related
Overfishing is Actually Worse Than We Thought
12 Problems with Ocean Fish Farming

Photo Credit: g.norðoy

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Visit site: 

Giant Trawlers Are Gobbling Up Fish in Critical Marine Ecosystem

Posted in alo, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, Monterey, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Giant Trawlers Are Gobbling Up Fish in Critical Marine Ecosystem

Are There Toxic Chemicals Lurking in Your North Face Jacket?

It may come as a surpriseor perhaps not surprising at allthat a variety of toxic chemicals have been used to makeoutdoor gear like jackets, shoes, tents, backpacks, and even sleeping bags.

A new report by Greenpeace Germany has documented that “hazardous and persistent chemicals, dangerous to human health and the environment, have been found in the products of leading outdoor brands.”

Greenpeace tested 40 products purchased in 19 different countries and regions. Among the companies whose products were found to be tainted are The North Face, Patagonia, Mammut, Columbia and Haglofs.

The chemicals found embedded in the fabrics of the products these companies make are calledpoly- and per-fluoronated compounds, or PFCs. PFCs are synthetic chemical compounds that do not exist in nature. They are used by the outdoor gear industry to make products waterproof and dirt-repellent.

As effective as they may be, PFCs have serious human health and environmental impacts. These compounds can cause harm to reproduction, promote the growth of tumors, and affect the hormone system. The National Institute for Environmental Health Science reports that in animal studies PFCs also “reduce immune function; cause adverse effects on multiple organs, including the liver and pancreas; and cause developmental problems in rodent offspring exposed in the womb.”

The Minnesota Department of Health notes that PFCs “are extremely resistant to breakdown in the environment,” so once they are released, they persist for a very long time. They can get into the food chain of animals far from their source. PFCs have been found in animals like dolphins, in polar bear livers, and in human blood. They have also shown up in drinking water and in fish near textile factories in China where much of the clothing and gear is produced.

The gear is not believed to threaten you if you wear it. However, because we all live on one planet, and because once the chemicals are released they circulate all over the world, you could be exposed to themwhether you’ve bought the gear or are basically an innocent bystander. Certainly polar bears never wear Polar-tec, yet the chemicals have shown up in their bodies.

What Can You Do?

1) Ask the manufacturer of your gear whether they use PFC compounds for water proofing and repelling dirt. There’s not really much you can do if you already own the gear, other than return the gear to the manufacturer when you’re finished with it, but that’s better than tossing it in the trash.

2) Buy used gear. Since a big source of PFC pollution comesduring manufacturing, you can reduce the amount of new products manufactured – and new chemicals emitted – by buying gently used equipment and clothing.

3) Likewise, sell your used gear on EBay or Craig’s List, donate it, or take it to a thrift shop rather than throwing it away. Extend its life as long as possible.

4) Buy gear from companies that have pledged zero discharge of hazardous chemicals into the environment. There aren’t many of them, but one to look at is Paramo, which has issued a “Detox Commitment” that hopefully will inspire its competitors.

RELATED

Big-Brand Clothing Found Laced with Toxic Chemicals
Why You Should Wash Your Clothes Before You Wear Them

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Continue at source: 

Are There Toxic Chemicals Lurking in Your North Face Jacket?

Posted in alo, Dolphin, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Are There Toxic Chemicals Lurking in Your North Face Jacket?

World Leaders Just Agreed to a Landmark Deal to Fight Global Warming

green4us

Will the Paris Agreement be enough? There’s a deal. lexaarts/Shutterstock; NASA; Photo illustration by James West There was relief and celebration in Paris Saturday evening, as officials from more than 190 countries swept aside monumental differences and agreed to an unprecedented global deal to tackle climate change. The historic accord, known as the Paris Agreement, includes emissions-slashing commitments from individual countries and promises to help poorer nations adapt to the damaging effects of a warming world. Negotiators also agreed on measures to revise, strengthen, and scrutinize countries’ contributions going forward. However, the deal leaves some key decisions to the future, and it is widely recognized as not representing an ultimate solution to climate change. Instead, it sets out the rules of the road for the next 10 to 15 years and establishes an unprecedented international legal basis for addressing climate issues. Within the agreement, nearly every country on Earth laid out its own plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change impacts. Although those individual plans are not legally binding, the core agreement itself is. The deal sets a long-term goal of keeping the increase in the global temperature to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels and calls on countries to “pursue efforts” to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees C. It adds that “parties aim to reach a global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible.” French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who has served as chair of the two-week summit, said the deal is the most ambitious step ever taken by the international community to confront climate change. In announcing the deal, President Barack Obama clinched a major foreign policy success years in the making and secured long-term action on climate change as a core part of his legacy, despite extraordinary opposition at home from the Republican majority in Congress. During the second week of the talks in Paris, Secretary of State John Kerry was a driving force, delivering several high-profile speeches in which he sought to cast the US as a leader on climate action. For Kerry, who has been a prominent voice in climate summits for two decades, it was essential to craft a deal the US could agree to and not to return home empty-handed. The deal signals that world leaders are now committed to responding to the dire scientific warnings about the impacts of warming. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels and other human activities are threatening to usher in an era of rising sea levels, sinking islands, scorching heat waves, devastating droughts, mass human migration, and destruction of ecosystems. Among the deal’s biggest successes is a commitment to produce a global review of climate progress by 2018 and to bring countries back to the negotiating table by 2020 to present climate targets that “will represent a progression beyond the Party’s then-current” target. In other words, countries are committed to ramping up their ambition in the short term. This was an essential item for many people here, since the current raft of targets only keeps global warming to 2.7 degrees C, not 1.5. The deal also promises to hold every country accountable to the same standard of transparency in measuring and reporting their greenhouse gas emissions; this was a provision that the US had pushed hard for in order to ensure that other big polluters such as China and India abide by their promises. “Countries have united around a historic agreement that marks a turning point in the climate crisis,” said Jennifer Morgan, global director of the climate program at the World Resources Institute. “This is a transformational long-term goal that should really send clear signals into the markets” about the imminent decline of fossil fuel consumption. The deal is expected to be a boon for the clean energy industry, as developing and developed countries alike increase their investments in wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources. Early in the talks, a high-profile group of billionaire investors, including Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, promised to pour money into clean energy research, and a critical component of the agreement is a commitment for developed countries to transfer clean technologies to developing countries. “If we needed an economic signal from this agreement, I think this is rather remarkable,” said Michael Jacobs, a senior advisor at New Climate Economy. Still, parts of the deal left some environmental groups unsatisfied, particularly with respect to financing for clean energy technology and climate change adaptation. The deal requires all developed countries to “provide financial assistance to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation.” Although the deal sets a floor of $100 billion for that assistance and calls for that number to be raised by 2025, it doesn’t specify a new higher target and does not commit any country, including the US, to any particular share of that. The deal also specifies that nothing in it can be construed as holding countries with the biggest historical contribution to climate change—most importantly the US—legally or financially liable for climate change-related damages in vulnerable countries. And it provides no specific timeline for peaking and reducing global greenhouse gas emissions; according to some scientists, that will need to happen within the next few decades for the 1.5 degrees C target to be achievable. “There’s not enough in this deal for the nations and people on the frontlines of climate change,” said Kumi Naidoo, international executive director of Greenpeace, in a statement. “It contains an inherent, ingrained injustice. The nations which caused this problem have promised too little help to the people who are already losing their lives and livelihoods.” The task of delegates at Le Bourget, a converted airport north of Paris, over the past two weeks was substantial. After all, more than two decades of UN-led climate talks had failed to produce a global deal to limit greenhouse gases. The Copenhagen talks in 2009 collapsed because officials couldn’t agree on how to level the playing field between rich and poor countries, sending negotiations into a morass of recriminations. Before that, the Kyoto protocol in 1997 also failed—the US and China didn’t ratify it, and it only covered about 14 percent of global carbon emissions. This year’s negotiations, the 21st in the series of UN climate talks, had to be different. One of the major reasons negotiators were able to reach a deal was that much of the work had been done in advance. By the time Paris rolled around, more than 150 countries had promised to change the way they use energy, detailing those changes in the form of individual commitments. Known as INDCs, these pledges formed the basis of Saturday’s deal. Of course, the INDCs won’t be legally binding, and even if most countries do manage to live up to their promises, they aren’t yet ambitious enough to prevent dangerous levels of warming. The latest estimate is that the INDCs will limit global warming to about 2.7 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. That’s above the 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) limit scientists say is necessary to avert the worst impacts of global warming—and far above the 1.5 degrees Celsius target that negotiators in Paris agreed to aim for. But it’s also about 1 degree C less warming than would happen if the world continued on its present course. The Paris summit began as the largest meeting of government leaders in history (outside the UN building in New York) just two weeks after ISIS-affiliated terrorists killed 130 people across the city. While French officials immediately promised the talks would continue, they soon banned long-planned, massive climate protests, citing security concerns. That decision set the stage for several skirmishes between police and protesters, who remained committed to disrupting the talks in order to highlight issues such as sponsorship from big oil companies and the plight of poorer countries. At one protest, an estimated 10,000 people formed a human chain in the Place de la République, the site of a spontaneous memorial to the victims of the Paris attacks. There were scores of arrests. But the climate talks themselves went ahead as planned. Some 40,000 heads of state, diplomats, scientists, activists, policy experts, and journalists descended on the French capital for the event. Perhaps the biggest factor driving the negotiators’ unprecedented optimism was the fact that the two biggest greenhouse gas emitters, and the world’s two biggest economies—the US and China—had made a public show of working together to get an agreement. A landmark climate deal between the two countries in November 2014 built critical momentum. China later promised to create a national cap-and-trade program to augment a suite of emissions-control policies. The Obama administration, meanwhile, pushed through its Clean Power Plan regulations, despite aggressive resistance from Republicans. Still, as the talks neared their conclusion on Friday, tensions were rising between the so-called “High Ambition Coalition”—a negotiating bloc including the US, European Union, and dozens of developing countries—and China and India. Nevertheless, a rare alliance between world leaders ultimately prevailed: Pope Francis, for one, campaigned tirelessly for a climate deal ahead of the talks, decrying the “unprecedented destruction of the ecosystem.” All of this cleared the way for large groups of developed and developing countries to cooperate at the talks. Bigger countries appeared ready to work with the 43-country-strong negotiating bloc of highly vulnerable developing nations. Recent changes of leadership in Canada and Australia, notable adversaries of climate action in recent years, switched these mid-sized players into fans of a deal before the talks. Even Russia’s Vladimir Putin seemed to have an eleventh hour change of heart—or, at least, of rhetoric—and called for action.

Read original article: 

World Leaders Just Agreed to a Landmark Deal to Fight Global Warming

Related Posts

Breaking: World Leaders Just Agreed to a Landmark Deal to Fight Global Warming
2014 Was the Year We Finally Started to Do Something About Climate Change
The World’s Plan to Save Itself, in 6 Charts
Leave Fossil Fuels Buried to Prevent Climate Change, Study Urges
Was 2014 Really the Warmest Year? Here’s Why It Doesn’t Matter.
Will the Planet Survive the Next 24 Hours?

Share this:






Link: 

World Leaders Just Agreed to a Landmark Deal to Fight Global Warming

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, Hagen, LAI, Landmark, Monterey, ONA, OXO, PUR, solar, solar power, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on World Leaders Just Agreed to a Landmark Deal to Fight Global Warming